Appellants: Union Public Service Commission

Vs.

Respondent: Shristi Singh and Ors.

Decided on 26.08.2019

Facts: The Union Public Service Commission, the Appellant herein, issued Advertisement No. 04 of 2015 inviting online applications for recruitment of Drug Inspectors. The first Respondent qualified in the combined computer-based recruitment test. Initially, 496 candidates were called for interview by a notice for selection to 147 posts of Drug Inspector which were advertised. In the said list the name of the first Respondent was not there. Thereafter, another notice was issued by the Appellant, calling 723 candidates for interview. The first Respondent was amongst those who were asked to attend the interview. She submitted the relevant documents regarding the requisite experience. By a communication, candidature of the first Respondent was cancelled on the ground that she lacked the necessary experience in testing of substances specified in Schedule 'C' in a laboratory approved by the licensing authority. The non-consideration of the first Respondent for selection to the post of Drug Inspector was challenged in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. By an interim order dated 05.08.2016, the Tribunal directed the Appellant to permit the first Respondent to participate in the selection. As the final result was declared during the pendency of the OA, the Tribunal passed an order making the declaration of result subject to the outcome of the Original Application. The Tribunal finally allowed the Original Application and directed the Appellant to interview the first Respondent and in case she secures a score which is more than the last selected candidate in her category she was permitted to be recommended for appointment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was dismissed. Hence, present appeal.

Held, while allowing the appeal

The controversy in the present appeal is regarding the fulfillment of the condition of experience as required by the Advertisement. The requisite experience for appointment as Drug Inspector is 18 months in the field of quality control and in testing of drugs prescribed in Schedule 'C' and 'C-1' in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Certificates that were produced by the first Respondent which were issued by M/s. Alpa Laboratories and M/s. Mylan Laboratories are placed on record. The certificate issued by M/s. Mylan lab would disclose that the first Respondent was involved in different stages of testing in quality control unit of the plant. She was also involved in testing of one of the drugs specified in Schedule 'C' and 'C-1' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. According to the certificate, the first Respondent worked for two years from 13th April, 2014 in M/s. Mylan Laboratories. The requirement of 18 months', according to the Advertisement is for a period of two years prior to 1st March, 2015. As the certificate does not satisfy the requirement of the Advertisement in view of the period from 13th Aril, 2014 to 1st March, 2015 being less than 18 months, it was rightly not taken into consideration. The other certificate that was produced by the first Respondent before the Appellant was issued by M/s. Alpa Laboratories on 5th March, 2014. The first Respondent was certified to have worked with M/s. Alpa Laboratories from 7th September, 2012 to 5th March, 2014 in the quality control department. It was mentioned in the certificate that, the first Respondent was carrying on all activities relating to quality control department such as RM/PM sampling and analysis as well as water sampling and testing, documentations, online quality checks, training etc. there is no mention of the first Respondent having experience in testing Schedule 'C' drugs. The candidature of the first Respondent was rejected on the ground that, the said certificate issued by M/s. Alpa Laboratories could not satisfy the eligibility conditions mentioned in the Advertisement. Yet another certificate issued by the M/s. Alpa Laboratories was relied upon by the first Respondent. According to the said certificate, the first Respondent worked for 18 months and had experience in testing of drugs specified in Schedule 'C' and 'C-1' of the Rules. This certificate discloses that the job done by the first Respondent was only for experience purpose without any remuneration.

The Tribunal was not impressed with the prevaricating stands of the Appellant in rejecting the candidature of the first Respondent. Submissions made on behalf of the Appellant relating to M/s. Alpa Laboratories not being a duly licensed firm and the experience certificate not mentioning Schedule 'C' drugs were rejected. The contention of the Appellant that, the certificate dated 17th March, 2015 cannot be relied upon as the experience was on a non-remunerative job was also not accepted by the Tribunal. The High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the ground that the Appellant did not take a firm stand about the actual reason for rejection of the first Respondent's candidature.

The certificate dated 5th March, 2014 issued by M/s. Alpa Laboratories was the only certificate produced by the first Respondent before the Appellant. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the second certificate dated 17th March, 2015 showing the experience of the first Respondent in testing Schedule 'C' drugs was not produced along with the certificate dated 5th March, 2014. In any event, the said certificate which showed the experience of the first Respondent for 18 months in testing Schedule 'C' drugs on a non-remunerative job is doubtful. The said certificate was issued a day after the first Respondent has submitted her online application. Certificate dated 17th March, 2015 discloses that no salary was paid to the first Respondent for the work done was only for experience purpose. The decision of the Appellant that the first Respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion is correct. The Tribunal and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said decision.

The judgment of the High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.